forever falling

interests (random selection): vampires (real ones), queer issues, epistemology, horror (watching/writing), writing, fire (worship), otherkin, sci-fi (reading), bdsm (feral pet), unusual movies, identity construction, body modification, sewing…
i am vegan, a sober addict, trans, a black swan, pan and poly, a redhead, a dragon, pagan (non-denominational animist), a freak, a lover, uncategorisable.
ask me things.
things i liked.

April 12, 2014 at 9:36pm
7 notes
Reblogged from twistmalchik

twistmalchik:

I don’t really understand the anti-self-diagnosis. I’m trying to figure out where they’re coming from, but I don’t get it.

I was diagnosed with OCD at 13. I became one of the card carrying mentally ill before I started high school. I started to show symptoms of OCD at 8. My ASD has been apparent since toddlerhood, although undiagnosed until my 20s. It’s really not that exciting being crazy. So why the gatekeeping?

It seems quite hegemonic. We need old, white, rich people to tell us something before it can be real.

Let me tell you a secret: diagnostic labels are useful in 3 situations.
3) Identity and community building
2) Universalization of treatment protocols.
1) Billing.

The only reason that old white men from the upper-class get to look at you over their Freud-boner is because insurance companies (read old white men) say so.

What about treatment protocols? They are important, but they overlap significantly between the diagnoses created by the dominant school of thought. What is useful for OCD is useful for depression is useful for social phobia. So how useful are diagnoses here really?

The one that the system doesn’t want us to know about is identity and community building. This is exactly what the anti-self-diagnosis crowd doesn’t understand. We know that people in communities— people with support systems— cope better with almost any kind of illness.

Do you see where this is going? A mental health system with largely inaccessible gatekeepers (expensive psychiatric care), abusive practices, arbitrary but sacred labels… It almost seems like it is purposeful. Who do you think is self-diagnosing anyway? It’s young people, poor people, people of color, people in rural areas, abuse victims, people who are disabled.

I get it now. Anti-self-diagnosis is a silencing tactic.

In a world where at least 1 in 4 people will have a psychiatric condition (diagnosible by the whitecoats), we’re shutting up the people who already have the least agency in order to empower the ruling class.

[While I examine the hegemonic nature of the mental health system here, I am fully participatory in it. I can access care, through my ability to access the people who labeled me. I am by no means saying that we shouldn’t receive treatment— only suspicious of those who would condemn those who cannot.]

5:23pm
73 notes
Reblogged from cobbleshock
cobbleshock:

Dingle peninsular with my brother

whaa!!! i rode on that road on a bike in 2003, and i was sure that i recognised it, and then i scrolled down and it is the same place!
we had a storm on that stretch of the road, but afterwards it cleared up and we had beautiful views.

cobbleshock:

Dingle peninsular with my brother

whaa!!! i rode on that road on a bike in 2003, and i was sure that i recognised it, and then i scrolled down and it is the same place!

we had a storm on that stretch of the road, but afterwards it cleared up and we had beautiful views.

(via zombizombi)

3:16pm
82,332 notes
Reblogged from wild-guy
charlesoberonn:

mildlyanxiousatthedisco:

sirenknights:

zooophagous:

"NOM!"

It’s so cuuuuuute!!!

it’s trying to disolve that finger for nourishment

Even cuter.

charlesoberonn:

mildlyanxiousatthedisco:

sirenknights:

zooophagous:

"NOM!"

It’s so cuuuuuute!!!

it’s trying to disolve that finger for nourishment

Even cuter.

(Source: wild-guy, via styrm)

April 9, 2014 at 2:47pm
1,115 notes
Reblogged from chicagopubliclibrary
chicagopubliclibrary:

Harvard Discovers Three Of Its Library Books Are Bound In Human Flesh
From Roadtrippers:

A few years ago, three separate books were discovered in Harvard University’s library that had particularly strange-looking leather covers. Upon further inspection, it was discovered that the smooth binding was actually human flesh… in one case, skin harvested from a man who was flayed alive.
As it turns out, the practice of using human skin to bind books was actually pretty popular during the 17th century. It’s referred to as Anthropodermic bibliopegy and proved pretty common when it came to anatomical textbooks. Medical professionals would often use the flesh of cadavers they’d dissected during their research.
One of the books includes an inscription in purple cursive:
"The bynding of this booke is all that remains of my dear friende Jonas Wright, who was flayed alive by the Wavuma on the Fourth Day of August, 1632. King Mbesa did give me the book, it being one of poore Jonas chiefe possessions, together with ample of his skin to bynd it. Requiescat in pace."

chicagopubliclibrary:

Harvard Discovers Three Of Its Library Books Are Bound In Human Flesh

From Roadtrippers:

A few years ago, three separate books were discovered in Harvard University’s library that had particularly strange-looking leather covers. Upon further inspection, it was discovered that the smooth binding was actually human flesh… in one case, skin harvested from a man who was flayed alive.

As it turns out, the practice of using human skin to bind books was actually pretty popular during the 17th century. It’s referred to as Anthropodermic bibliopegy and proved pretty common when it came to anatomical textbooks. Medical professionals would often use the flesh of cadavers they’d dissected during their research.

One of the books includes an inscription in purple cursive:

"The bynding of this booke is all that remains of my dear friende Jonas Wright, who was flayed alive by the Wavuma on the Fourth Day of August, 1632. King Mbesa did give me the book, it being one of poore Jonas chiefe possessions, together with ample of his skin to bynd it. Requiescat in pace."

(via library-lessons)

2:42pm
5,458 notes
Reblogged from bad-mojo

Other parts of ancient Eurasia had traditions of third-gender spirit-people. Herodotus and Hippocrates both discuss the “enarees”, or male-to-female transsexual shamans among the ancient Scythians, who “mutilated” their genitalia and took on female roles. They were said to be the most powerful shamans of their people. Ovid actually claimed that some Scythian priestesses knew how to extract “female poison” distilled from the urine of a mare in heat, with which to dose men in order to feminize them. The average person might throw this off as silliness, if they didn’t know that pregnant mare’s urine is the main source of Premarin, the most widely used estrogen drug today. They also ate a lot of licorice root - so popular among them that the Greeks to whom they exported it referred to it as “the Scythian root” - which is also an anti-androgen.

— 

Ergi - The Way of the Third (via regionalholidaycaptain)

yesssssss

(via baeddelaire)

I love trans history!

(via rambleonamazon)

(RELEVENT)

I would FUCKING LOVE to see a comprehensive trans history book, that especially covered the history of HRT, I’ve always had questions but never really had answers!

(via transgalacticwanderer)

especially after YEARS of our HISTORY BEING ERASED and pushed under the rug to make cis people comfortable, and say that “trans people id a modern thing” to be able to show up and take out a history book and be like BOOM shut the hell up.

(via rosescarletfairy)

Lots of us are working on this.

Susan Stryker is the chief here, and Cristian Williams unearths a great deal. If you aren’t checking in with Zagria’s blog, you are missing a ton.

I know of six or seven history books that are being worked on.

Make no mistake: we are entering a renaissance of trans understanding that rivals that of the late 60’s under the Reed funded work.

One warning, though: understand that much of this is being written with an intense understanding that the way we think of transness today does not apply to pretty much any culture but western ones, and that the history is deeply intertwined with the cultures of the time being looked at.

Historians that apply today’s understanding, which comes from the mid 1800’s, to times and people’s and cultures prior to that is incredibly bad form, as it both erases those cultural points and obscures the full breadth of our history.

(via tonidorsay)

(Source: bad-mojo, via transascendant)

2:12pm
16,278 notes
Reblogged from twocentslice

humainsvolants:

ranpaopao:

feyuca:

twocentslice:

this fucking game I swear

Please support me by reading this comic on twocentslice.com! Thanks!

I’ve been playing this game non stop all week
I need to get the 4096 tile I am so close I feEL it in my BONES

OH MAN I’VE BEEN PLAYING THIS NONSTOP TOO LOL

i do not thank you for making me discover that game

i got 4096, i’m aiming for 8192!

April 7, 2014 at 3:04pm
399 notes
Reblogged from byeolrince

thecutestscribeoferebor:

madamefaust:

thecutestscribeoferebor:

There is one I could follow…

I have always wondered about the strategical side of having your leader in the front line. I understand that it’s probably great for the moral of the troups, because they see the big guy take the same risks as them, but I’m still wondering. Do you really want to risk the life of the guy you’ve decided was worth dying for?

At the same time, I realise it’s probably a very modern way of looking at it, since for centuries now, in Europe at least (wouldn’t know about the rest of the world) the big guy tends to stay somewhere safe to give the orders, so that’s what I’m used to seeing as the logical way to proceed.

Also the fact is that I’m emotionally attached to these particular leaders and I want to see them survive, which isn’t the case with what few leaders I know of in History who didn’t take part in the fighting (I’m thinking WWI here, but most French kings and emperors give me the same feeling) so maybe there’s something to be said for the participation of leaders in the fight.

*puts on historian hat*

Disclaimer - I am not a military historian, BUT I know a tiny bit about late medieval warfare which seems to be roughly what PJ & Co. are drawing on when staging their battles and that kind of military culture seems to be what Tolkien had in mind when writing his books.

Given the fact that most of the battles we see in ME are either sieges or melees on the open field, there really isn’t much that can be done in terms of strategy once it starts. They’re fighting basically hand-to-hand in close combat with the majority of ranged weapons being used by Elves (interesting since English soldiers favored the longbow for centuries). That kind of fighting doesn’t lend itself to leading from afar.

Beyond scouts or your own eyes, you can’t track the enemy’s movements once a battle has begun, unless you were standing on a very tall hill with a spyglass and even if you COULD track the course of battle, there’s no effective way to communicate your orders to your troops. So, even if your commander is someone with a good mind for strategy and combat, keeping them out of the fray is pointless in that regard because of the limits of their own perception of the battle and the difficulty of ordering one’s troops during the actual fighting.

The reason knights wore livery and kings/lords/commanders flew their standards wasn’t just for pomp, it was also so troops could recognize their own forces and know who they were fighting against. There was one battle in the Wars of the Roses where the livery of two opposing factions was so similar…hang on…*runs to get source* okay, it was during Edward IV’s six-week campaign of 1471. The Lancastrian side had a battle (group of fighting men) who were under the command of the Earl of Oxford, they were spotted by men of their own side who mistook their livery (star with streams) for the opposing side’s Yorkist livery (the SUN with streams) and opened fire on the. They broke ranks and fled, crying treason and demoralized the Lacanstian forces.(1) With that kind of confusion on the battlefield, there was very little a commander could do to control the outcome of the battle from afar, so they just got right in it.

Also, it was just accepted as part of military culture at this time (and also kingdom-building since most “countries” were being united by violence at this time), that the commander of each group that came to fight would be in the thick of it with his men. And oftentimes, the outcome of the battle was decided by the fate of the man in charge. If your commander died, what reason did you have to keep fighting? Most troops were “volunteers” (using the term loosely since if your lord who owned the land you lived on called upon you to fight with him, there’s a bit of an incentive to go), once their lord was fallen, they would usually admit defeat. So there’s this martial culture where success in battle determines right to rule in some cases (obviously taking into account dynastic inheritance and bloodlines and genealogy), you want your king to display ability in war, to demonstrate his strength as a ruler and also for the morale of the troops since if the king isn’t fighting, what the hell are they doing there?

Obviously there are issues of monarchical stability that are avoided when your kings aren’t dying in battle all the time, but as far as keeping the commanders out of the fray, the nature of war in the medieval period and the expectations of what a king is expected to contribute to warfare were very different than what they are now. That’s just to ground it in some actual history, there’s a whole literary history of the war-hero to delve into for further explanation.

1. Ross, Charles. The Wars of the Roses: A Concise History. London: Thames and Hudson, 1976. 125.

Won’t lie, I was hoping for an explanation. I got it. It was awesome owo

Also, in a historical context the leader is likely to have much better armor, weapons, horses etc. than their rank and file soldiers, because that stuff is damn expensive. Then the leader likely has a personal escort, probably also in better armor etc., and you’ve got something like a tank going in and just rolling over the infantry. So it does rather make sense.

(Source: byeolrince, via humainsvolants)

April 3, 2014 at 11:07am
149,894 notes
Reblogged from deannorris

humainsvolants:

cosmicsan:

when i first started using tumblr, every morning i would keep scrolling the dashboard until i reached the last post i saw from the night before

i often try to still do this and that’s one of the reasons i can’t manage my time, always end up going to sleep way too late and am wrecking my life and not doing what I should do

still doing this, doing this right now! ;)

(Source: deannorris)

11:03am
412,244 notes
Reblogged from 4gifs
humainsvolants:

rearadmiral-comsmocock:

can we just take a moment to realize that not only did it paint an elephant it painted it to give the illusion of depth

this is so important this is wow !!!!

humainsvolants:

rearadmiral-comsmocock:

can we just take a moment to realize that not only did it paint an elephant it painted it to give the illusion of depth

this is so important this is wow !!!!

(Source: ForGIFs.com)

11:00am
12,954 notes
Reblogged from fistoffight

humainsvolants:

nekobakaz:

goldenheartedrose:

chonklatime:

this-kid-is-not-ok:

lizreita:

art-is-the-word:

majiinboo:

ayn-randroid:

s4karuna:

the-fury-of-a-time-lord:

"We will sing to you, Doctor. The universe will sing you to your sleep. This song is ending. But the story never ends."

ooooooooh i actually like this a LOT

#so many amazing men and women of colour portraying one character through the ages #why couldn’t we have this?

I find this to be REALLY dumb on numerous levels.  The reason Doctor Who is great is because of the actors, white though they were.  If you wanna go off and start your own show that’s wonderfully imaginative and highly addictive that runs for 50 years, then by all means, go ahead. 

  • But Doctor Who is a man, and the guy(s) who invented Doctor Who wanted it to be that way.  Re-appropriating this character isn’t constructive, it’s tearing down another human beings work and saying “This isn’t as legitimate because it’s a white dude playing this character.” 


Am I gonna get called a racist?  Probably. 
Am I a racist?  No.  Fuck you. 
The point being, someone else made Doctor Who, a bunch of white guys made Doctor Who.  It was THEIR PROJECT.  IT’S NOT YOUR VEHICLE FOR DIVERSITY.  IT’S WHATEVER THEY WANT IT TO BE.  The fact that Doctor Who is a white male is only the symptom of a problem.  People of color were not and are not properly represented in modern media.  It’s not Doctor Who’s fault he’s a white guy, but you can’t change that.  Come up with a better show, come up with a DIFFERENT SHOW. 

Politically, the idea that people would want to change a property, or desire change within a property because of the skin color of the protagonist is disgusting, come up with your own. 

How can someone be so obtuse? Is Doctor Who not a being that supposedly transcends race and gender? Portraying this character as a different crusty white man each time goes against this very principle. And yes, you are racist.

EVERYONE POINT AT ayn-randroid AND LAUGH. HAHAHAHA WHAT A DUMBASS HAHAHA 

…why. They were just stating their opinion

^^ yeah, people can’t have their own opinion? ^^

And just a little fact I’m going to post here - England’s population is 85.4% white and only 14.6% is black, Asian, etc so maybe the only actors good enough to be the Doctor happen to be white?

It isn’t like Doctor Who pretends anyone who isn’t white doesn’t exist because Mickey and Martha aren’t just background characters. And there are others but I don’t feel like going through a whole list of characters finding everyone who isn’t white.

Are…are you seriously saying that in a country that is home to over seven million people of color, there is not one, NOT ONE actor of color good enough to play a TV character?

Is that seriously what you’re saying right now?

Also, also? Can we not assume that Doctor Who was invented by a bunch of white men? Because it wasn’t?

Please Google Verity Lambert. And learn a thing.

So yes, you are a racist. And ignorant of the history of Doctor Who. Yes, it is a story that has been led by white men, but the truth of the matter is that IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE.

If I remember correctly, one of the actors that was considered for Eleven was Paterson Joseph, who has a very talented history to him.  I was very hoping to see him cast as the Doctor, as he played in Neil Gaiman’s Neverwhere

And if I remember well, the idea to have the doctor regenerate as a woman was already in the air during the Classic Who era even though it never actually happenened.

Also When Troughton was a cast as the second doctor, during a long time they were thinking of doing brownface which is completely shitty and racist and it’s fortunate they didn’t actually do it (sadly brownface and yellowface do happen a lot in Classic Who) but is a proof that the idea that the doctor could regenerate as a PoC is really not a new one.

When Tennant (i think it was Tennant, but maybe Ecclestone) regenerates he actually says “Still not a woman” so we’ve got it right there, canon, the doctor actually expects and possibly even hopes to someday regenerate as a woman.

(Source: fistoffight)